1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,950,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from June 10, 2015 to July 1, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant issued and delivered promissory notes (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) in the name of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with face value of KRW 26950,000 and due date on June 9, 2015.

B. C endorsed and transferred the instant promissory note to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2015.

C. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff presented the Promissory Notes in the instant case to the New Sejong Bank Co., Ltd., the place of payment, but the payment was refused on the ground of misappropriation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, who is the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the final holder, 2,6950,000 won per annum from June 10, 2015, which is the day following the payment date, to July 1, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. The Defendant: (a) actually issued a promissory note in this case to the effect that the Defendant’s wife D received the check of the amount equivalent to the amount in the name of E upon the Defendant’s request from the representative director E, and without the Defendant’s permission; (b) inasmuch as the Promissory note in this case did not incur losses to the Defendant while making a fraudulent payment; (c) the Defendant cannot pay the amount of the Promissory

B. Therefore, as to the assertion that the bill of this case was issued without authority, the defendant himself stated that D had issued a bill in the name of the subordinate defendant in the F office with the defendant while working together with the defendant. Thus, the defendant is recognized as having comprehensively granted D the right to issue a bill.

Therefore, the defendant did not directly issue the bill of this case.